Dismissed¶¶12

R.Panneerselvam v. Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar Thirukoil

Madras HC6 Aug 2025A/3461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: impleadment of legal representatives; setting aside abatement; condonation of delay; third parties as defendants 14 and 15; Release Deed extinguishing 1/3 undivided share; necessary and proper parties; declaration of title; delivery of vacant possession; demolition of superstructure; O.S.No.7686 of 1972 City Civil Court Chennai. Outcome: all three applications dismissed; no relief granted; no costs or amounts stated; underlying suit unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Having executed the Release Deed, the right of the 3rd defendant (including the 1/3 undivided share crystallized in O.S.No.7686 of 1972) does not survive; any claim to the monetary value of that right must be pursued through independent proceedings against those from whom the right could be claimed, not against the plaintiff. ¶¶12

R.Panneerselvam Vs Arulmigu Kasiviswanathar Thirukoil — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants - third parties and legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant - are entitled to be impleaded as the 14th and 15th defendants in C.S.No.658 of 2012. +1 more

¶¶4

Court's answer

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicants are neither necessary parties nor proper parties (source prints 'proper properties') to adjudicate the issues raised in the suit, which is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession after demolition of the superstructure.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

The applicants are not in possession of the suit property and therefore would not be bound by any decree in the suit.ratio¶¶12
All three applications are dismissed because the applicants have no right, title or interest over the suit property.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Impleadment / abatement - A.Nos.3461, 3462 & 3463 of 2025 in C.S.No.658 of 2012 (Madras High Court, C.V. Karthikeyan, J.), filed by third parties as legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant seeking impleadment as defendants 14 and 15, setting aside of abatement and condonation of delay, dismissed. Held: although the 3rd defendant's right stood crystallized to a 1/3 undivided share in O.S.No.7686 of 1972 (City Civil Court, Chennai), that right did not survive her execution of a Release Deed in her lifetime; any monetary claim thereon lay against persons other than the plaintiff. The applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title and delivery of vacant possession after demolition of the superstructure, were not in possession, and would not be bound by any decree.

¶1

A.Nos.3461, 3462 & 3463 of 2025 in

¶2

C.S.No.658 of 2012

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶4

These three applications have been filed by the third parties to the suit seeking to implead themselves as the 14^th and 15^th defendants. They are the legal representatives of the 3^rd defendant.

¶5

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the Judges Summons, it had been contended that the 3^rd defendant had died even prior to the institution of the suit and that the applicants herein were not aware of the pendency of the suit and after knowledge came to them, they had filed these applications seeking to implead themselves and to set aside the abatement owing to the death of the 3^rd defendant and to condone the delay in filing such application.

¶6

3.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff contesting the applications. It is stated that the 3^rd defendant even during her life time had executed the Release Deed with respect to her 1/3 share of the suit schedule property and even the 3^rd defendant had no right, title or interest existing over the suit schedule property. It is therefore contended that the applicants herein cannot seek any further right larger than what could have been granted or what could have been agitated by the 3^rd defendant. It is also contended that the applicants are not in possession and as a matter of fact, the 3^rd defendant was never in possession.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶9

smv

¶10

4.The learned counsel for the applicant however placed reliance on

¶11

the judgment in O.S.No.7686 of 1972 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the right of the 3^rd defendant had been crystallized to 1/3 undivided share in the suit schedule property.

¶12

5.But however, having executed the Release Deed that right does not survive anymore and if at all, the monies value of such right is sought then independent proceedings will have to be initiated by the applicants, not against the plaintiff, but against those from whom that 1/3 right could be claimed by the applicants. They are neither necessary parties nor proper properties to adjudicate the issues raised in the suit which is for a declaration of the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession after the demolition of the superstructure. The applicants are not in possession and therefore they would not be bound by any decree. These applications are dismissed as they have no right, title or interest over the suit property.

¶13

06.08.2025

¶14

smv

¶15

A.Nos.3461, 3462 & 3463 of 2025

¶16

in C.S.No.658 of 2012

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis